Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Josephson transistor and robust supercurrent enhancement with spin-split superconductors

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spin-splitting field more than doubles the critical supercurrent of a long SNS Josephson junction at low temperature, in both parallel and antiparallel configurations.

desk verdict Predicts a robust >100% supercurrent enhancement in long spin-split SNS junctions, but the headline number is computed with inelastic broadening equal to the Thouless energy, and no δ-dependence is shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15807 v1 pith:GX6FRJSE submitted 2024-11-24 cond-mat.supr-con

Chi Sun , Jacob Linder This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords spin-splitsuperconductorsJosephsonjunctionsupercurrentenhancementpitransitionUsadelequationsuperconductingtransistorspinaccumulationtemperaturebias
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 studies a superconductor/normal-metal/superconductor junction whose superconducting leads are spin-split by a magnetic exchange field. It argues that in long junctions at low temperature the critical supercurrent grows strongly with the spin-splitting field, increasing by more than 100% for both parallel and antiparallel lead configurations, and that voltage, spin-accumulation, or temperature-bias inputs can control the supercurrent like a transistor. The interest is that a magnetic field alone would amplify the supercurrent, while the out-of-equilibrium controls would give a lower-voltage sign switch and a sharp thermal response.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Usadel equation for the diffusive normal metal, solved with a Riccati parametrization of the quasiclassical Green's function and coupled to the superconducting leads through interface boundary conditions. The spin-split leads are treated as reservoirs with an analytical Green's function that depends on the field $h_s$, and the supercurrent is extracted from the Keldysh component of the Green's function at the mid-point of the junction. The effect that carries the enhancement is a spin-splitting-induced increase of the low-energy spectral supercurrent in long junctions, reflecting a deeper superconducting proximity effect in the normal metal.

What would settle it

A self-consistent calculation that lets the order parameter adjust to the spin-splitting field at $T/T_c = 0.01$ and $h_s/\Delta_0 = 0.7$ would falsify the central claim if the more-than-100% enhancement disappears, as would an experimental measurement of the critical current of a long spin-split SNS junction versus in-plane field at dilution temperatures that shows no such rise before the Clogston limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central numerical result is that for a long junction with $L = 10\xi$ at $T/T_c = 0.01$, the critical supercurrent increases by more than 100% as the spin-splitting field is raised to $h_s/\Delta_0 \approx 0.7$, and this happens for both parallel and antiparallel alignments of the spin-splitting fields. The authors contrast this with an earlier tunneling-limit result for superconductor/ferromagnet structures, where the enhancement is limited to antiparallel alignment and is smaller. The same framework yields two additional results: applying a transverse voltage to the normal metal produces the familiar supercurrent suppression and pi-transition, with the transition voltage lowered by increasing the spin-splitting or the junction length, and applying a small temperature difference to a long junction suppresses the supercurrent sharply, with roughly a 50% drop at $\Delta T/\Delta_0 \approx 0.05$. The authors interpret the equilibrium enhancement as a strengthening of the proximity effect at low energies in the normal metal, visible in the local density of states.

Load-bearing premise

The headline enhancement is computed with the superconducting gap held at its zero-field value even when the spin-splitting field reaches about $0.7\Delta_0$ at $T/T_c = 0.01$, so the central result assumes the field does not itself weaken superconductivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A long SNS junction with spin-split leads can serve as a field-controlled supercurrent amplifier in equilibrium, with the critical current increasing by more than a factor of two near $h_s/\Delta_0 \approx 0.7$.
  • The enhancement is insensitive to whether the two leads' spin-splitting fields are parallel or antiparallel, removing the need to switch or stabilize the relative magnetization orientation.
  • Adding spin-splitting to a voltage-controlled SNS transistor lowers the voltage at which the supercurrent reverses sign, making the pi-transition more energy-efficient.
  • A temperature bias of a few hundredths of the gap in a long junction can cut the supercurrent by about half in a sharp jump, suggesting a sensitive thermal switch.
  • Applying a spin accumulation to the normal metal reproduces the voltage-control behavior at the center of the junction, so the transistor can be operated by a pure spin signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the enhancement mechanism is the low-energy proximity strengthening, the same spin-split leads should boost supercurrents in other long coherent junctions, such as multiterminal devices, which could be checked with existing magnetic-insulator/superconductor technology.
  • Beyond the paper: the equivalence of voltage and spin accumulation at the junction center implies a transistor variant controlled by pure spin injection, which would avoid charge current in the control line.
  • Beyond the paper: the position and sharpness of the temperature-bias supercurrent jump could serve as a calibrated probe of the spin-splitting field in the leads.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript theoretically studies Josephson transport in a diffusive SNS junction with spin-split superconducting electrodes. Using the Usadel equation in the Riccati parametrization, the authors compute the equilibrium and non-equilibrium supercurrent for parallel (P) and antiparallel (AP) spin-splitting alignments. The central equilibrium result is that for long junctions (L=10ξ) at low temperature (T/Tc=0.01) the critical supercurrent increases by more than 100% when the spin-splitting field approaches h_s/Δ0=0.7, for both P and AP configurations, in contrast to the short-junction limit where only AP shows enhancement and where the calculation recovers Ref. [28]. For non-equilibrium situations, the paper demonstrates a voltage-induced π-transition at lower voltages when spin-splitting is increased, and sharp supercurrent suppression under temperature bias. The paper is clearly written and the formalism is standard.

Significance. The predicted long-junction enhancement is a potentially interesting effect for superconducting spintronics and extends the short-junction result of Bergeret et al. to a regime where the effect is larger and configuration-independent. The use of the established Usadel/Riccati framework and the reproduction of the short-junction limit are strengths. However, the central claim rests on a numerical calculation with an inelastic broadening δ/Δ0=0.01 that coincides with the Thouless energy of the long junction, and the paper does not provide a convergence check with respect to δ. The lack of the current-phase relation data and the use of a fixed BCS gap at low temperature are additional points that need to be addressed before the quantitative enhancement claim is fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III (after Eq. 13) and Fig. 2(e)] The inelastic broadening δ/Δ0=0.01 is equal to the Thouless energy E_Th/Δ0=(ξ/L)^2=0.01 for the L=10ξ junction. In this long-junction limit the spectral supercurrent at h_s=0 is concentrated at ε≈E_Th, so the artificial broadening δ is not a small parameter but rather sets the decay length sqrt(D/δ)=L of the proximity correlations. Since the zero-field supercurrent appears in the denominator of the enhancement ratio, the >100% enhancement in Fig. 2(e) may be overestimated if δ suppresses the h_s=0 current more than the h_s=0.7 current. The manuscript does not report any δ-dependence. Please provide a convergence study with δ/Δ0=10^-3 and 10^-4 (or an analytical argument for why δ=0.01 is small) and confirm that the enhancement persists. In addition, please verify that the supercurrent is conserved along the x direction with finite δ, since the equilibrium result is evaluated at x=L/2.
  2. [Sec. III A, paragraph before Eq. (13)] The authors state that 'We have verified numerically that the supercurrent-phase relation I(Δφ) approaches the generic sinusoidal dependence when the spin-splitting is included for both P and AP configurations (not shown here)' and thereafter define the critical current as I(Δφ=π/2). Because the enhancement ratio is a quantitative claim (over 100%), it is important to display the current-phase relation for the relevant parameter regime (e.g., L=10ξ, h_s/Δ0=0.7, T/Tc=0.01) or to provide a quantitative bound on the deviation from the sine law over the parameter ranges used in Figs. 2, 5, and 6.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There is a typo 'configuations' in the abstract; please correct it to 'configurations'.
  2. [Sec. III A] The sentence 'This only has practical consequence for the plots in the present manuscript where we have set T/Tc=0.5, causing us to consider a maximum value of h_s/Δ0≃0.5 in that case and thus not including selfconsistency' is difficult to parse; please clarify explicitly which panels are computed with a self-consistent Δ and which are not.
  3. [Eq. (10) and Fig. 2 caption] The numerical calculations set ζ_N=5, but the value of ζ_S used in the boundary condition is not specified; please state the values of all interface parameters used.
  4. [Fig. 3(d)] The density of states deviation from unity is shown on a scale (0.985 to 1) that makes it difficult to see the claimed enhancement of the proximity effect; please plot 1-DOS or use an enlarged inset.
  5. [Sec. III B] The claim that spin accumulation at the center of the N wire produces the same supercurrent modulation as electric voltage is not supported by any figure; either provide the corresponding data or state it as an analytical consequence of the distribution function in Eq. (16).
  6. [Sec. II] The paper does not mention the numerical method used to solve the Riccati equations (e.g., finite-difference scheme, iteration tolerance); a brief reproducibility note would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the supercurrent enhancement is computed from stated inputs of the Usadel equations with no fitted parameter; the sole self-citation supplies an independently checkable bulk Green function and does not encode the target result.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and parameter-free with respect to the reported effect. The supercurrent is obtained by solving the Usadel equation (1)-(3) in N with Kupriyanov-Lukichev boundary conditions (9)-(10) and the bulk spin-split Green function (6), then evaluating the normalized current integral (13) with the equilibrium distribution (15). The inputs D, L, T, hs, Delta0, zetaN, delta, and phi are all stated external parameters; no quantity is fitted to produce the >100% enhancement, and no output is fed back into any equation that defines an input. The one self-citation that enters the calculation, Ref. [32] for Eq. (6), is an independently checkable solution of the bulk commutator equation (4) and does not contain the long-junction enhancement claim, so it is not a load-bearing appeal to authority. The paper explicitly acknowledges the non-self-consistent Delta limitation for T/Tc=0.5 and the Clogston bound, and the delta/Delta0=0.01 broadening is a stated model choice; both are correctness and parameter-regime concerns, not circular reductions, because changing them does not alter the fact that the reported current is computed from stated inputs. No circular step can be quoted or exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on standard quasiclassical transport equations and a small number of model parameters chosen by hand, none fitted to the target result. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • interface parameter ζ_N = 5
    Chosen to model low-to-intermediate interface transparency; not fitted to data but affects the magnitude of the supercurrent.
  • inelastic broadening δ/Δ0 = 0.01
    Added to quasiparticle energies to model inelastic scattering; a numerical regularization choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Usadel equation with Riccati parametrization is a valid description of the diffusive SNS junction.
    Invoked in Sec. II A; this is the standard quasiclassical diffusive theory for superconducting proximity systems.
  • domain assumption The spin-split superconducting leads can be treated as reservoirs with the analytical Green function of Eq. (6).
    Sec. II B; assumes no self-consistent modification of Δ inside the leads and a uniform spin-splitting field along z.
  • domain assumption The current-phase relation is sinusoidal, so the critical current is I(Δφ = π/2).
    Sec. III; the authors state they verified this numerically but do not show the verification.
  • domain assumption The nonequilibrium distribution functions of Eqs. (16) and (17) are valid near the center of the N region, where the supercurrent is evaluated.
    Sec. III B and C; a standard approximation for voltage- and temperature-biased long diffusive N wires.
  • domain assumption The order parameter Δ retains its BCS temperature dependence with Δ0/Tc = 1.76 and is not computed self-consistently at low T.
    Sec. III A; the paper notes self-consistency is needed for T/Tc = 0.5, but uses the non-self-consistent Δ for the low-T enhancement panels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Josephson transistor and robust supercurrent enhancement with spin-split superconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GX6FRJSE

@misc{pith2026241115807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Josephson transistor and robust supercurrent enhancement with spin-split superconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GX6FRJSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15807}
}
abstract

We theoretically investigate the supercurrent flow in a Josephson junction consisting of two spin-split superconductors combined by a normal metal weak link. The normal metal may be driven out of equilibrium, thus modifying the electron and hole occupation and consequently the supercurrent through the system. Considering first an equilibrium normal metal, we find that increasing the spin-splitting field can enhance the supercurrent strongly for long junctions at low temperatures. In contrast to previous work, this is a much larger enhancement (over 100%) and it is achieved for both parallel and antiparallel spin-splitting field configurations, making the effect robust. On the other hand, when a gate voltage is applied to drive the system out of equilibrium, we demonstrate a more efficient $\pi$-transition of the supercurrent in terms of a lower transition voltage by tuning the spin-splitting. Moreover, we find the application of temperature bias strongly suppresses the supercurrent, resulting in very sharp supercurrent jumps as outputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) SNS Josephson junction considered in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) The normalized critical supercurrent as a function of the spin-splitting field magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) The critical spectral current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) The normalized critical supercurrent as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) The normalized critical supercurrent as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Temperature bias dependence of the normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Temperature bias dependence of the normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) The normalized critical supercurrent as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Enhancement of the Josephson Current by an Exchange Field in Superconductor- Ferromagnet Structures, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3140 (2001)

    work page 2001

  2. [1]

    Meservey, P

    R. Meservey, P. M. Tedrow, and P. Fulde, Magnetic field splitting of the quasiparticle states in superconducting aluminum films, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1270 (1970)

    work page 1970

  3. [2]

    Meservey and P

    R. Meservey and P. M. Tedrow, Spin-polarized electron tunneling, Phys. Rep. 238, 173 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [3]

    F. S. Bergeret, M. Silaev, P. Virtanen, and T. T. Heikkil¨a, Col- loquium: Nonequilibrium effects in superconductors with a spin-splitting field, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 041001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Ozaeta, P

    A. Ozaeta, P. Virtanen, F. S. Bergeret, and T. T. Heikkil ¨a, Predicted Very Large Thermoelectric Effect in Ferromagnet- Superconductor Junctions in the Presence of a Spin-Splitting Magnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 057001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    M. E. Bathen and J. Linder, Spin Seebeck effect and thermo- electric phenomena in superconducting hybrids with magnetic textures or spin-orbit coupling, Sci. Rep. 7, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    H¨ ubler, M

    F. H¨ ubler, M. J. Wolf, D. Beckmann, and H. v. L ¨ohneysen, Long-range spin-polarized quasiparticle transport in mesoscopic Al superconductors with a Zeeman splitting, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 207001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    C. H. L. Quay, D. Chevallier, C. Bena, and M. Aprili, Spin imbal- ance and spin-charge separation in a mesoscopic superconductor, Nat. Phys. 9, 84 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    De Simoni, E

    G. De Simoni, E. Strambini, J. S. Moodera, F. S. Bergeret, and F. Giazotto, Toward the Absolute Spin-Valve Effect in Supercon- ducting Tunnel Junctions, Nano Lett. 18, 6369 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    K.-R. Jeon, K. Cho, A. Chakraborty, J.-C. Jeon, J. Yoon, H. Han, J.-K. Kim, and S. S. P. Parkin, Role of two-dimensional ising superconductivity in the nonequilibrium quasiparticle spin-to- charge conversion efficiency, ACS Nano15, 16819 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    L. J. Kamra and J. Linder, Inverse spin-hall effect and spin swapping in spin-split superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 226002 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    B. D. Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tun- nelling, Phys. Lett. 1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  5. [12]

    F. K. Wilhelm, G. Sch ¨on, and A. D. Zaikin, Mesoscopic superconducting–normal metal–superconducting transistor, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1682 (1998)

    1998

  6. [13]

    J. J. A. Baselmans, A. F. Morpurgo, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. Klapwijk, Reversing the direction of the supercurrent in a con- trollable Josephson junction, Nature 397, 43 (1999)

    1999

  7. [14]

    Sun and J

    C. Sun and J. Linder, Gate-tunable sign reversal of dissipationless spin-diode effect reaching 100%, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07337 (2024), 2410.07337

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. J. A. Baselmans, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. Klapwijk, Nonequi- librium supercurrent transport in controllable superconductor– normal-metal–superconductor junctions, Phys. Rev. B63, 094504 (2001)

    2001

  9. [16]

    J. J. A. Baselmans, T. T. Heikkil ¨a, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. Klapwijk, Direct Observation of the Transition from the Con- ventional Superconducting State to the𝜋 State in a Controllable Josephson Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 207002 (2002)

    2002

  10. [17]

    Giazotto, T

    F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkil¨a, F. Taddei, R. Fazio, J. P. Pekola, and F. Beltram, Mesoscopic Supercurrent Transistor Controlled by Nonequilibrium Cooling, J. Low Temp. Phys.136, 435 (2004)

    2004

  11. [18]

    Tiira, E

    J. Tiira, E. Strambini, M. Amado, S. Roddaro, P. San-Jose, R. Aguado, F. S. Bergeret, D. Ercolani, L. Sorba, and F. Giazotto, Magnetically-driven colossal supercurrent enhancement in InAs nanowire Josephson junctions, Nat. Commun. 8, 1 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    Y. Sato, K. Ueda, Y. Takeshige, H. Kamata, K. Li, L. Samuelson, H. Q. Xu, S. Matsuo, and S. Tarucha, Quasiparticle Trapping at Vortices Producing Josephson Supercurrent Enhancement, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 207001 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Rocci, D

    M. Rocci, D. Suri, A. Kamra, G. Vilela, Y. Takamura, N. M. Nemes, J. L. Martinez, M. G. Hernandez, and J. S. Moodera, Large Enhancement of Critical Current in Superconducting Devices by Gate Voltage, Nano Lett.21, 216 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    D. D. Kuhn, N. M. Chtchelkatchev, G. B. Lesovik, and G. Blat- ter, Supercurrents through gated superconductor–normal-metal– superconductor contacts: The Josephson transistor, Phys. Rev. B 63, 054520 (2001)

    2001

  15. [22]

    I. V. Bobkova and A. M. Bobkov, Triplet contribution to the josephson current in the nonequilibrium superconduc- tor/ferromagnet/superconductor junction, Phys. Rev. B 82, 024515 (2010)

    2010

  16. [23]

    Sankar, J

    S. Sankar, J. S. Meyer, and M. Houzet, Josephson effect in superconductor/normal-dot/superconductor junctions driven out of equilibrium by quasiparticle injection, Phys. Rev. B 105, 134515 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Matsuo, T

    S. Matsuo, T. Imoto, T. Yokoyama, Y. Sato, T. Lindemann, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, and S. Tarucha, Joseph- son diode effect derived from short-range coherent coupling, Nat. Phys. 19, 1636 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Fornieri, G

    A. Fornieri, G. Timossi, P. Virtanen, P. Solinas, and F. Gia- zotto, 0–𝜋 phase-controllable thermal Josephson junction, Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 425 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    J. A. Ouassou, J. W. A. Robinson, and J. Linder, Controlling spin supercurrents via nonequilibrium spin injection, Sci. Rep. 9, 1 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Paolucci, G

    F. Paolucci, G. De Simoni, and F. Giazotto, A gate- and flux- controlled supercurrent diode effect, Appl. Phys. Lett. 122, 042601 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    K. D. Usadel, Generalized diffusion equation for superconducting alloys, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 507 (1970)

    1970

  22. [30]

    Schopohl and K

    N. Schopohl and K. Maki, Quasiparticle spectrum around a vortex line in a d-wave superconductor, Phys. Rev. B 52, 490 (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    Belzig, F

    W. Belzig, F. K. Wilhelm, C. Bruder, G. Sch ¨on, and A. D. Zaikin, Quasiclassical Green’s function approach to mesoscopic superconductivity, Superlattices Microstruct. 25, 1251 (1999). 8

    1999

  24. [32]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, Strong odd-frequency correla- tions in fully gapped Zeeman-split superconductors, Sci. Rep. 5, 1 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    M. Y. Kuprianov and V. F. Lukichev, Influence of boundary transparency on the critical current of dirty ss’s structures, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz94, 149 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    F. K. Wilhelm, G. Sch ¨on, and A. D. Zaikin, Mesoscopic Superconducting–Normal Metal–Superconducting Transistor, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1682 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, A note on the maximum critical field of high-field superconductors, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1, 7 (1962)

    1962

  28. [36]

    A. M. Clogston, Upper limit for the critical field in hard super- conductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  29. [37]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Superconductivity in a strong spin- exchange field, Phys. Rev. , A550 (1964)

    1964

  30. [38]

    Y. N. Larkin and A. I. Ovchinnikov, Inhomogeneous state of superconductors, Sov. Phys. JETP20, 762 (1965)

    1965

  31. [39]

    J. A. Ouassou, T. D. Vethaak, and J. Linder, Voltage-induced thin-film superconductivity in high magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B 98, 144509 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Tsymbal and D

    E. Tsymbal and D. Pettifor, Perspectives of giant magnetoresis- tance, Solid State Physics, 56, 113 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    T. T. Heikkil¨a, F. K. Wilhelm, and G. Sch¨on, Non-equilibrium supercurrent through mesoscopic ferromagneticweak links, Eu- rophys. Lett. 51, 434 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Strambini, V

    E. Strambini, V. N. Golovach, G. De Simoni, J. S. Moodera, F. S. Bergeret, and F. Giazotto, Revealing the magnetic proximity effect in EuS/Al bilayers through superconducting tunneling spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Mater.1, 054402 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Y. M. Xiong, S. Stadler, P. W. Adams, and G. Catelani, Spin- Resolved Tunneling Studies of the Exchange Field in EuS/Al Bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 247001 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.