Microscopic theory of the field-induced instability of the vortex-free state in superconducting thin-film strips

Takayuki Kubo

Microscopic theory of the field-induced instability of the vortex-free state in superconducting thin-film strips

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the instability field of the vortex-free state in a superconducting thin-film strip from a microscopic theory with no fitted cutoff, giving three width regimes and recovering the Pearl-London 1/W scaling in wide strips.

desk verdict A self-contained microscopic Usadel calculation that removes the core-cutoff ambiguity of the Pearl-London strip instability and finds three width regimes; the main caveat is that identifying the spinodal with the observed vortex-entry field remains an interpretive step. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04508 v1 pith:EXLC7DEF submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.supr-con physics.ins-det

Takayuki Kubo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-conphysics.ins-det

keywords superconductingthin-filmstripsvortex-freestateinstabilityfieldedgebarrierdirty-limittheorydepairingmomentumPearl-Londonscalingspinodal

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 claims that the field at which a thin superconducting strip's vortex-free state first becomes unstable can be computed from a microscopic theory, without the arbitrary short-distance cutoff that the Pearl-London point-vortex model requires. The author defines the instability field $B_s$ as the lowest field at which the vortex-free state ceases to be a local minimum of the Gibbs free energy, and derives it from the microscopic diffusion-limit functional for a homogeneous dirty strip with negligible self-field over the full temperature range below $T_c$. The result splits into three width regimes: a uniform one-dimensional loss of superconductivity in narrow strips, an edge-selective long-wavelength instability at intermediate widths, and a finite-wave-number edge-localized mode in wide strips. In the wide-strip limit the calculation recovers the Pearl-London $1/W$ scaling with a coefficient about 2.6% below the naive cutoff-based value, so the old scaling law survives without a fitted parameter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the second variation of the microscopic diffusion-limit free-energy functional about the vortex-free equilibrium. Reducing out the spectral-angle perturbations gives a quadratic form in the gap-amplitude perturbation and the superfluid-momentum perturbation; the instability field is the first field at which the lowest eigenvalue of this form reaches zero. For 1D perturbations the key operator is the oscillator-type second-order operator $A_b=-d^2/dx^2+b^2x^2$ with Neumann edge conditions, whose lowest orbital eigenvalue fixes the 1D threshold through a digamma-function condition. For 2D perturbations, longitudinal Fourier modes decouple, and the quadratic form is evaluated with the constraint $u_k'=O(k)$ so that the long-wavelength limit $k\to0^+$ keeps the momentum shift finite. This construction replaces the arbitrary vortex-core cutoff with a parameter-free microscopic calculation.

What would settle it

A direct test is to measure the vortex-entry field of a dirty thin-film strip as a function of width and temperature and compare with the predicted $b_s(W,T)$. At $T=0$ in the wide limit the theory predicts $B_s\simeq0.9742\,\phi_0/(2\pi\xi_D W)$; a measured threshold with a different prefactor, a residual dependence on an assumed core size, or a strong deviation from $1/W$ would falsify the identification. In the narrow regime, observing that superconductivity does not disappear continuously through the 1D mode, but instead shows a finite order-parameter jump at entry, would also count against the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spinodal field of the vortex-free state, defined as the applied field at which the lowest quadratic curvature of the Gibbs functional first vanishes, is the microscopic counterpart of the Pearl-London edge-barrier-disappearance field. For a homogeneous dirty strip with negligible self-field the instability field is $b_s=\min\{b_s^{(1D)}, b_s^{(2D)}\}$, with the 1D and 2D thresholds computed from the same functional. In narrow strips ($W<W_1(T)$) superconductivity disappears continuously into the normal state through a node-free transverse mode, a qualitative failure of the edge-barrier picture; for $W_1(T)<W<W_2(T)$ an edge-selective long-wavelength mode ($k\to0^+$ with a finite momentum shift) is the first to go unstable; and for $W>W_2(T)$ the critical wave number $k_*$ is finite and the mode is localized near one edge. At $T=0$ in the wide limit, $b_s\simeq0.9742/w$, reproducing the Pearl-London $1/w$ scaling within 2.6%. The paper is explicit that what happens beyond the instability, including vortex nucleation and entry, requires a separate nonlinear calculation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the field at which the vortex-free state stops being a local minimum of the Gibbs free energy is the field at which a real strip loses its vortex-free state; the paper identifies this spinodal as the physical entry threshold but does not prove that the observed entry field is controlled by the local spinodal rather than by a global energy barrier.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For fixed material parameters, a single strip can move between instability regimes as temperature changes; the crossover widths $W_1(T)$ and $W_2(T)$ grow toward $T_c$ and diverge as $1/\sqrt{1-T/T_c}$ near $T_c$.
In the wide-strip limit at $T=0$, the theory predicts $B_s\simeq0.9742\,\phi_0/(2\pi\xi_D W)$, a parameter-free prefactor that can be compared directly with measured entry fields.
For strips narrower than $W_1(T)$, the Pearl-London edge-barrier mechanism fails qualitatively; the observed loss of superconductivity should be a continuous, non-edge-selective suppression rather than vortex entry.
For strips wider than $W_2(T)$, the unstable mode has a finite longitudinal wave number $k_*>0$, so the field-induced instability is spatially periodic along the edge rather than uniform.
The vortex-free state ceases to be a local minimum only at $b_s$; the subsequent nonlinear path to vortex entry is left open by this calculation.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension beyond the paper's zero-current assumption: applying a finite transport current should make the field and current instability thresholds meet at the depairing current, unifying the two criteria.
The finite-wave-number mode for $W>W_2$ raises the testable possibility that vortex nucleation begins as a periodic row of vortices with spacing $2\pi/k_*$; a time-dependent simulation could check that spacing.
Relaxing the $W\ll\Lambda$ assumption would let screening currents modify the local momentum profile; plausible consequences are shifted crossover widths and logarithmic corrections to the wide-strip $1/W$ law.
The same stability criterion could be applied to strips with engineered inhomogeneous Pearl length, yielding a microscopic upper bound for the metastable vortex-free field relevant to diode effects.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a clean piece of theory. The central result is that the instability field of the vortex-free state in a dirty superconducting strip can be computed from the Usadel functional without any fitted cutoff, and it gives three distinct regimes: a 1D uniform disappearance for narrow strips, an edge-selective 2D long-wavelength mode for intermediate widths, and a finite-wave-number edge-localized mode for wide strips. The wide-strip asymptote bs ≈ 0.9742/w recovers the Pearl-London 1/W scaling, and the numerical coefficient trades on the independently known dirty-limit depairing momentum Qd(0)=0.4871. That is a genuine advance: the prior Pearl-London theory could not fix its core cutoff, let alone give the temperature dependence. The derivations in Eqs. (7)-(14) are internally consistent, and the reported numerical uncertainty below 0.05% is credible given the stated independent refinements. The GL comparison near Tc for the crossover widths is a nice cross-check.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The biggest is the identification of the spinodal field Bs with the physically measured vortex-entry field. The paper itself says this is an interpretation, not a derived equivalence, and that a separate nonlinear calculation is needed to establish vortex nucleation. In the narrow-strip 1D regime the unstable mode drives the order parameter to zero continuously with no vortex at all, so the spinodal does not universally coincide with vortex entry. That is a genuine limitation on the physical reach of the result, but it does not undermine the linear-stability calculation itself. The k=0+ mode interpretation is also a bit subtle: the distinction between a uniform shift of the background momentum and a zero-average perturbation is carefully explained, but the physical meaning of that mode as an edge-selective instability would benefit from a more explicit connection to vortex entry. I also noticed the reference list leans heavily on the author's own prior work, but the key input Qd(0) is independently established and self-citation is not inflating the main result.

Who is this for? Anyone working on vortex entry in thin-film superconductors, especially those who have used the Pearl-London edge-barrier formula and wondered what the cutoff really is. It is a serious contribution that deserves a proper referee. My recommendation: engage with it, send it to peer review, and ask the author to strengthen the discussion of the spinodal-to-entry mapping and to make the code/data availability statement explicit in the manuscript.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stability of the vortex-free state of a homogeneous dirty superconducting strip in a perpendicular magnetic field using the Usadel functional with negligible self-field. It defines the instability field B_s as the smallest applied field at which the lowest quadratic curvature of the Gibbs functional vanishes, computes it for 1D and 2D perturbations, and obtains three width regimes: a 1D continuous disappearance of superconductivity (W<W1), an edge-selective 2D long-wavelength mode (W1<W<W2), and a finite-wave-number edge-localized mode (W>W2). At T=0 the wide-strip limit gives b_s≈0.9742/w, recovering the Pearl–London 1/W scaling. The paper also computes the temperature dependence of B_s and the crossover widths, and reports agreement with the Ginzburg–Landau results near T_c.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is a substantial contribution to thin-film superconductivity. It gives the first microscopic Usadel-level determination of the spinodal field of the vortex-free state in a strip without a fitted core cutoff, over the full temperature range, and it identifies a narrow-strip regime in which the Pearl–London edge-barrier picture fails qualitatively. The wide-strip asymptote b_s≈0.9742/w is a robust, parameter-free prediction that recovers the Pearl–London 1/W scaling and is close to the naive xi_cut=xi_D coefficient. The paper also reports numerical convergence checks and states that source code is provided separately. The stress-test concern about equating the spinodal with the measured vortex-entry field does not, in my reading, undermine the central claim: the paper explicitly defines B_s as the first vanishing of the quadratic curvature of the Gibbs functional and explicitly defers vortex nucleation and entry to a separate nonlinear calculation in the Discussion. My remaining comments are therefore local and presentational.

minor comments (4)

[Introduction and Discussion] The phrase 'microscopic counterpart of the Pearl–London barrier-disappearance field' could be read as an equality claim. Since B_s is defined as the spinodal of the vortex-free state and the Discussion correctly states that vortex entry requires a separate nonlinear calculation, I suggest replacing 'counterpart' with 'analogue' or adding an explicit caveat that the identification is interpretive and is not an equality with the measured vortex-entry field.
[2D perturbations, Eq. (14)] The k→0+ mode with u0≠0 is a uniform shift of the superfluid momentum, which can equivalently be viewed as a transverse displacement of the strip relative to the magnetic field. The sentence denying that this is an externally imposed uniform transport current is terse; one sentence giving the displacement interpretation would clarify why this limiting mode is physical and not a spurious transport-current direction.
[Figure 2 inset] The fitting functions w1(t) and w2(t) are descriptive fits; the text says this, but it would be helpful to state explicitly on the figure or in the caption that these functions are not presented as microscopic results and to show residuals or error bars rather than only a relative-error statement.
[References [13] and [14]] References [13] and [14] are arXiv preprints; if they are under review or accepted elsewhere, the publication status should be indicated, since the text describes them as completing a series of results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the instability field is computed from the Usadel functional with no fitted input; self-citations are framing only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, b_s = min{b_s^(1D), b_s^(2D)}, is the outcome of a self-contained linear-stability analysis of the Usadel functional. The quadratic forms in Eqs. (7), (13), and (14) are derived from the functional (4) without any fitted parameter. The instability field is then defined as the field where the lowest curvature vanishes (Eqs. 11, 15, 16). This is a computation, not a restatement of an input. The wide-strip asymptotic result b_s ≃ 0.9742/w follows from identifying the local edge momentum with the independently known dirty-limit depairing momentum Q_d(0)=0.4871, which is cited not only to the author's own Refs. [16–19] but also to external Refs. [20–22]. The analytic fits for w1(T) and w2(T) in Fig. 2 are descriptive parametrizations of crossover widths and do not feed back into the computation of b_s. The self-citations [13] and [14] only frame the work as part of a three-paper series; they are not load-bearing for the derivation. The paper explicitly acknowledges that connecting the spinodal field to vortex entry requires a separate nonlinear calculation (Discussion), so there is no disguised circular identification with the Pearl–London entry field. All stated assumptions (homogeneous dirty strip, negligible self-field, no transport current) are explicit and do not include the target result. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work in a way that forces the result.

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

The central B_s calculation introduces no fitted parameters: the Usadel functional and the depairing momentum are standard inputs. The only fitted objects in the paper are the descriptive w1(T) and w2(T) crossover fits in Fig. 2, which are not used to compute B_s. The principal modeling choices are the self-field-neglected thin-film limit and the interpretive mapping from the spinodal to the physical instability field.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Dirty-limit Usadel theory with Matsubara Green functions is the correct microscopic description for a homogeneous disordered superconducting strip.
The entire calculation uses the Usadel functional (Eq. 4) and Usadel equations (Eqs. 1-3).
domain assumption Thin-film and narrow-strip approximations: d << lambda and W << Lambda, so the applied vector potential is fixed and the magnetic self-field is neglected.
Stated in the 'Usadel functional' section; restricts validity to W << Lambda.
domain assumption Insulating strip edges with no transport current impose Neumann boundary conditions and zero net current.
Used for the eigenfunctions and the vortex-free background; stated after Eq. (5).
ad hoc to paper The field at which the lowest quadratic curvature of the Gibbs functional vanishes defines the physically relevant instability field B_s, the microscopic counterpart of the Pearl-London barrier-disappearance field.
Introduction definition; the connection to actual vortex entry is not derived and requires a separate nonlinear calculation as stated in the Discussion.
ad hoc to paper The k to 0+ limit of the 2D perturbation family with u0 nonzero is a valid physical perturbation and not an externally imposed uniform transport current.
Discussed in the 2D perturbations section; argued but not rigorously proven, and the long-wavelength regime depends on this distinction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic theory of the field-induced instability of the vortex-free state in superconducting thin-film strips." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EXLC7DEF

@misc{pith2026260804508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic theory of the field-induced instability of the vortex-free state in superconducting thin-film strips},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EXLC7DEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04508}
}

abstract

In the Pearl--London theory, the edge-barrier-disappearance field of a superconducting thin-film strip depends on an arbitrary short-distance core cutoff because the vortex is treated as a point object. The theory does not determine the cutoff or how it depends on temperature $T$, and therefore cannot determine the $T$ dependence of the instability field. Here we formulate the microscopic stability problem directly for the vortex-free superconducting state. This removes the core-cutoff ambiguity and determines the instability field $B_s$ over the full temperature range and across all width regimes considered here. For a homogeneous dirty strip with negligible self-field, three width regimes occur. For $W<W_1(T)$, superconductivity disappears continuously into the normal state through a one-dimensional (1D) instability. For $W_1(T)<W<W_2(T)$, an edge-selective two-dimensional (2D) long-wavelength mode becomes unstable. For $W>W_2(T)$, the critical wave number is finite and the unstable mode is localized near an edge. In the wide-strip limit, $B_s\propto1/W$, recovering the Pearl--London scaling. In sufficiently narrow strips, however, the Pearl--London edge-barrier picture fails qualitatively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04508 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** shows the width dependence of Bs at finite temperatures. Since ξD is temperature independent, the dimensionless width w = W/ξD of a given strip is fixed. Both crossover widths increase with temperature because the characteristic length scale of the superconducting response grows as T approaches Tc. Near Tc, this increase can be attributed to the divergence of ξGL(T ). The inset shows w1 = W1/ξD and w2 = W2/ξD. Near… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

K. K. Likharev, The formation of a mixed state in planar semiconductor ﬁlms, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 14, 722 (1971)

work page 1971
[2]

G. Stan, S. B. Field, and J. M. Martinis, Critical Field for Complete Vortex Expulsion from Narrow Supercon- ducting Strips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097003 (2004)

2004
[3]

K. H. Kuit, J. R. Kirtley, J. R. Clem, H. Rogalla and J. Flokstra, Vortex Trapping and Expulsion in Thin-Film Type-II Superconducting Strips, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 19, 3537 (2009)

2009
[4]

V. G. Kogan and M. Ichioka, Vortex Cores in Narrow Thin-Film Strips, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 094711 (2020). 6

work page 2020
[5]

V. G. Kogan and N. Nakagawa, Moving Pearl Vortices in Thin-Film Superconductors, Condens. Matter 6, 4 (2021)

2021
[6]

The quadratic contribution vanishes along this direc- tion

satisfy (Ω n + Ab)αn = η. The quadratic contribution vanishes along this direc- tion. Expanding the Gibbs functional to fourth order, using this linear relation, and integrating by parts gives G − G N = 2πτ∑ n ∫ dx [α2 n(α′ n)2 + Ωnα4 n/4], apart from terms of sixth and higher order. The fourth-order con- tribution is therefore positive. For b slightly be...

work page
[7]

Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Eﬀect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconductors through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys

T. Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Eﬀect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconductors through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 034033 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

The physical interpretation is as follows

that no other 1D curvature changes sign at a lower ﬁeld over the tem- perature and width ranges studied. The physical interpretation is as follows. The 1D per- turbation is uniform along the entire length of the strip and does not select either an edge or a particular lon- gitudinal position. Its transverse proﬁle is given by the node-free lowest eigenfun...

work page

Show all 28 references

[9]

At T = 0, Eq

and ﬁnding the value of b for which its lowest eigenvalue a0(b,w ) reaches this critical value. At T = 0, Eq. ( 11) is understood as the limit T → 0, which gives a0(b(1D) s ,w ) = 1/2. We now show that superconductivity reaches the nor- mal state continuously through the 1D in...
[10]

G. M. Maksimova, Mixed state and critical current in narrow semiconducting ﬁlms, Phys. Solid State 40, 1607 (1998)

1998
[11]

Catelani and James P

G. Catelani and James P. Sethna, Temperature depen- dence of the superheating ﬁeld for superconductors in the high-κ London limit, Phys. Rev. B 78, 224509 (2008)

2008
[12]

S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engi- neering, 3rd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2024)

2024
[13]

Let λ2D(b,k ) denote its lowest nontrivial curvature, where k = 0 + means the limit k → 0+ at ﬁxed uk =kϕk

gives δ2Gred 2D,k = ∫ w/2 −w/2 dx { η2 k ln T Tc + 2πτ ∑ n [ η2 k Ωn +s2 n { u2 k + (u′ k)2 k2 } − (cnηk −Rnuk) L−1 nk (cnηk −Rnuk) ]} .(14) This is a real symmetric quadratic form in ηk anduk. Let λ2D(b,k ) denote its lowest nontrivial curvature, where k = 0 + means the limit...
[14]

M. K. Transtrum, G. Catelani, and J. P. Sethna, Su- perheating ﬁeld of superconductors within Ginzburg– Landau theory, Phys. Rev. B 83, 094505 (2011)

2011
[15]

W. P. M. R. Pathirana and A. Gurevich, Superheating Field in Superconductors with Nanostructured Surfaces, Front. Electron. Mater. 3, 1246016 (2023)

2023
[16]

T. Kubo, Superheating ﬁeld of clean superconductors near the type-I–type-II boundary: the low-temperature Meissner stability limit of niobium, arXiv:2606.10420 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2026)

2026 arXiv
[17]

Kubo, Microscopic theory of the lower critical ﬁeld in superconducting thin-ﬁlm strips, arXiv:2607.05890 [cond-mat.supr-con]

T. Kubo, Microscopic theory of the lower critical ﬁeld in superconducting thin-ﬁlm strips, arXiv:2607.05890 [cond-mat.supr-con]

arXiv
[18]

Kubo, Microscopic equivalence of the vortex-entry current and the depairing current in a superconducting thin-ﬁlm strip, arXiv:2607.11518 [cond-mat.supr-con]

T. Kubo, Microscopic equivalence of the vortex-entry current and the depairing current in a superconducting thin-ﬁlm strip, arXiv:2607.11518 [cond-mat.supr-con]

arXiv
[19]

Gurevich and T

A. Gurevich and T. Kubo, Surface impedance and op- timum surface resistance of a superconductor with an imperfect surface, Phys. Rev. B 96, 184515 (2017)

2017
[20]

Kubo, Superﬂuid ﬂow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating ﬁeld, Phys

T. Kubo, Superﬂuid ﬂow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating ﬁeld, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033203 (2020)

2020
[21]

Kubo, Erratum: Superﬂuid ﬂow in disordered super- conductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depair- ing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating ﬁeld [Phys

T. Kubo, Erratum: Superﬂuid ﬂow in disordered super- conductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depair- ing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating ﬁeld [Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033203 (2020)], Phys. Rev. Re- search 6, 039002(E) (2024)

2020
[22]

T. Kubo, Superheating ﬁelds of semi-inﬁnite super- conductors and layered superconductors in the diﬀu- sive limit: structural optimization based on the micro- scopic theory, Superconductor Science and Technology 34, 045006 (2021)

2021
[23]

Kubo, Higgs-mode-induced instability and kinetic i n- ductance in strongly dc-biased dirty-limit superconduc- tors, Physical Review Applied 23, 054091 (2025)

T. Kubo, Higgs-mode-induced instability and kinetic i n- ductance in strongly dc-biased dirty-limit superconduc- tors, Physical Review Applied 23, 054091 (2025)

2025
[24]

Maki, On Persistent Currents in a Superconducting Alloy

K. Maki, On Persistent Currents in a Superconducting Alloy. I, Prog. Theor. Phys. 29, 10 (1963)

1963
[25]

M. Yu. Kupriyanov and V. F. Lukichev, Temperature dependence of pair-breaking current in superconductors, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 6, 445 (1980) [Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. 6, 210 (1980)]

1980
[26]

J. R. Clem and V. G. Kogan, Kinetic impedance and de- pairing in thin and narrow superconducting ﬁlms, Phys. Rev. B 86, 174521 (2012)

2012
[27]

D. Y. Vodolazov, Saddle point states in two-dimensiona l superconducting ﬁlms biased near the depairing current, Phys. Rev. B 85, 174507 (2012)

2012
[28]

T. Kubo, An Encouraging of Paternity Leave: A Physi- cist Who Has Become a Stay-at-Home Dad in New York, KASOKUKI, 20, 50 (2023) [Journal of the Particle Ac- celerator Society of Japan 20, 50 (2023)]

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

K. K. Likharev, The formation of a mixed state in planar semiconductor ﬁlms, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 14, 722 (1971)

work page 1971

[2] [2]

G. Stan, S. B. Field, and J. M. Martinis, Critical Field for Complete Vortex Expulsion from Narrow Supercon- ducting Strips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097003 (2004)

2004

[3] [3]

K. H. Kuit, J. R. Kirtley, J. R. Clem, H. Rogalla and J. Flokstra, Vortex Trapping and Expulsion in Thin-Film Type-II Superconducting Strips, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 19, 3537 (2009)

2009

[4] [4]

V. G. Kogan and M. Ichioka, Vortex Cores in Narrow Thin-Film Strips, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 094711 (2020). 6

work page 2020

[5] [5]

V. G. Kogan and N. Nakagawa, Moving Pearl Vortices in Thin-Film Superconductors, Condens. Matter 6, 4 (2021)

2021

[6] [6]

The quadratic contribution vanishes along this direc- tion

satisfy (Ω n + Ab)αn = η. The quadratic contribution vanishes along this direc- tion. Expanding the Gibbs functional to fourth order, using this linear relation, and integrating by parts gives G − G N = 2πτ∑ n ∫ dx [α2 n(α′ n)2 + Ωnα4 n/4], apart from terms of sixth and higher order. The fourth-order con- tribution is therefore positive. For b slightly be...

work page

[7] [7]

Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Eﬀect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconductors through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys

T. Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Eﬀect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconductors through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 034033 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

The physical interpretation is as follows

that no other 1D curvature changes sign at a lower ﬁeld over the tem- perature and width ranges studied. The physical interpretation is as follows. The 1D per- turbation is uniform along the entire length of the strip and does not select either an edge or a particular lon- gitudinal position. Its transverse proﬁle is given by the node-free lowest eigenfun...

work page