Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Magnetic bound states embedded in tantalum superconducting thin films

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Standard argon milling of tantalum thin films leaves oxygen-related magnetic defects that create Yu-Shiba-Rusinov bound states inside the superconducting gap.

desk verdict Potentially relevant observation of in-gap states in argon-milled tantalum films, but the near-gap peaks are likely unresolved and the magnetic-YSR interpretation is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15903 v2 pith:H4ID43VE submitted 2024-12-20 cond-mat.supr-con

Soroush Arabi , Qili Li , Ritika Dhundhwal , Dirk Fuchs , Thomas Reisinger , Ioan M. Pop , Wulf Wulfhekel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords tantalumthinfilmsYu–Shiba–Rusinovboundstatesargonionmillingoxygendefectsmagneticimpuritiesscanningtunnelingmicroscopysuperconductingqubitstwo-levelsystems
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 reports that a standard in situ cleaning step used to prepare tantalum superconducting devices—oxygen descumming followed by argon ion milling—creates oxygen-related defects that carry local magnetic moments. At 45 mK, scanning tunneling spectroscopy resolves these moments as Yu–Shiba–Rusinov (YSR) bound states inside the superconducting gap: single-pair states with a binding energy of 597.5 µeV after 15 minutes of milling, and double-pair states at 598.4 µeV and 410.2 µeV after 30 more minutes. Because YSR states are low-energy excitations, the paper argues they can act as parasitic two-level systems that contribute to dephasing and energy relaxation in tantalum-based qubits. The finding matters because the cleaning protocol is routine in qubit fabrication, so these magnetic defects may be present in devices that were assumed to have clean interfaces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Yu–Shiba–Rusinov (YSR) bound state, a sub-gap excitation that forms when a local magnetic moment exchange-couples to a superconductor. The paper uses the standard formula $\varepsilon = \pm \Delta (1-\alpha^2)/(1+\alpha^2)$, with $\alpha = J S_{\mathrm{imp}} \pi \rho_n$, to relate the peak position to the exchange coupling $J$ and the impurity spin; weak coupling puts the peaks near the coherence peaks, and higher spin produces more pairs. The measurement machinery is a superconducting tantalum tip forming a superconductor–insulator–superconductor tunnel junction with the film, with sample and tip gaps $\Delta_{\mathrm{sample}}=600.3\,\mu\mathrm{eV}$ and $\Delta_{\mathrm{tip}}=208.1\,\mu\mathrm{eV}$ extracted from field-dependent Dynes fits. The argument also relies on a gap-edge-blurring mechanism: a moderate out-of-plane field smears the density-of-states peak at $\Delta$, letting near-gap YSR states decay into the continuum.

What would settle it

Expose identically prepared tantalum films to different oxygen levels before the same argon-milling step (for example, varied air-exposure times or an in situ capping layer), then count YSR peaks in dI/dV maps; if peak density does not increase with oxygen exposure, the oxygen-defect mechanism is wrong. Elemental mapping of individual defect sites would provide a complementary check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that argon milling of oxidized tantalum films does not simply remove the native oxide; it also disrupts tantalum–oxygen bonds in a way that leaves unsatisfied charge and spin centers embedded in or under the surface. These centers exchange-couple weakly to the superconducting condensate and produce YSR peaks that sit asymptotically close to the quasiparticle coherence peaks. Extending the milling time brings the defects closer to the superconducting interface, increases their effective spin, and shifts the peaks toward the Fermi level, giving the double-pair spectrum. The peaks are suppressed by an out-of-plane field of roughly 17–18 mT, which the paper explains through the broadening of the gap edge: once the coherence peaks blur, near-gap bound states overlap continuum states and become overdamped. The authors conclude that common cleaning protocols introduce magnetic bound states into tantalum qubit devices and should be revisited.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the in-gap conductance peaks are magnetic Yu–Shiba–Rusinov states caused by oxygen-generated defects; if they are instead non-magnetic impurity states or artifacts of the granular film, the paper's conclusion about cleaning-induced magnetism collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the cleaning-induced YSR states are present in real devices, fabricated tantalum qubits inherit low-energy magnetic excitations at the interface, adding a concrete decoherence channel.
  • Longer or more aggressive milling does not remove the problem; it makes it worse, generating higher-spin defects whose YSR peaks sit closer to the Fermi level.
  • The near-coherence-peak position means even weak perturbations—fields around 15–20 mT—can destabilize these states, so qubit operating environments need to be considered.
  • Noble-metal passivation layers that prevent the native oxide from forming would avoid the defect source altogether, pointing to a design change in metallization.
  • Because the defects are spatially random and often subsurface, device-level mitigation will need statistical or spatially averaged detection rather than atomic-precision defect control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension follows: the density of YSR states should track the oxygen content of the film; varying air exposure or oxygenation before milling and counting in-gap peaks would confirm the oxygen-moment attribution.
  • The same cleaning chemistry is used for other superconducting materials, so analogous magnetic bound states may be present in non-tantalum qubit films and deserve a similar search.
  • If near-gap YSR states are suppressed by small fields, then low-frequency magnetic noise in the device environment could effectively switch these states in and out of the gap, possibly explaining part of the noise seen in transmon coherence measurements.
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 manuscript reports low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy on alpha(111) tantalum thin films that were exposed to air and then Ar+ milled, a standard in situ cleaning step in qubit fabrication. After 15 minutes of milling the authors observe a 'single-pair' of in-gap peaks with binding energy 597.5 ueV, located very close to the superconducting coherence peaks, and after an additional 30 minutes they observe a double-pair structure with binding energies 598.4 ueV and 410.2 ueV. These peaks are suppressed by out-of-plane magnetic fields of about 17-18 mT. The authors interpret the peaks as Yu-Shiba-Rusinov bound states originating from local magnetic moments associated with oxygen defects introduced by the cleaning procedure, and they discuss implications for dephasing and relaxation in tantalum-based superconducting qubits.

Significance. If the identification is correct, the result is practically significant: standard Ar-milling of tantalum surfaces may inadvertently create magnetic impurities that contribute to qubit decoherence, and the paper provides a plausible microscopic route connecting a specific cleaning step to in-gap bound states. The manuscript has quantitative strengths: the superconducting gaps and critical fields are extracted with Dynes and Ginzburg-Landau fits, the field-dependent spectra are shown, and the central observation of milling-induced in-gap states is clearly presented. However, the magnetic YSR interpretation is largely inferential: no atomic-resolution identification of the defects, no elemental analysis for oxygen, and no quantitative model for the field-induced suppression are provided. The practical relevance for qubit processing is nonetheless a valid and testable hypothesis that warrants further work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Figure 2d and methods (lock-in settings)] The two near-gap binding energies are claimed to be within a few microvolts of the coherence peak, but the lock-in modulation amplitude is Vmod = 20 uV. With Delta_tip = 208.1 ueV and Delta_sample = 600.3 ueV, the single YSR state at epsilon = 597.5 ueV corresponds to a bias of 805.6 ueV, only 2.8 uV from the coherence peak at 808.4 ueV; the outer double-pair peak at epsilon = 598.4 ueV is 1.9 uV away. Because the lock-in signal is a convolution over a window of about 20 uV, these peaks cannot be resolved as distinct features with the stated resolution, so the quoted near-gap binding energies are not supported by the experimental parameters. The inner pair at 410.2 ueV is well separated and not affected by this criticism, but the near-gap values should be re-measured with smaller modulation or supported by a deconvolution/fitting analysis.
  2. [Figure 3 and text following it] The suppression of the well-resolved inner YSR pair at about 18 mT is not explained quantitatively. Using the reported Ginzburg-Landau parameters, at B = 18 mT the sample gap is Delta(B) = 600.3 x (1 - (18/103.1)^2) ≈ 582 ueV, so the 410 ueV state remains about 170 ueV inside the gap, and a Zeeman shift of roughly 2 ueV is negligible. The qualitative argument that gap-edge smearing overdamps states near the coherence peak cannot account for the disappearance of a state this deep in the gap, and the appeal to magnetic anisotropy (Ref. 28) is not developed into a testable prediction. A quantitative model of the field suppression, or additional measurements such as in-plane field dependence, temperature dependence, or spin-polarized spectroscopy, is needed before the inner pair can be confidently identified as a magnetic YSR state.
  3. [Abstract and experimental methods] The abstract and introduction attribute the bound states to 'oxygen descumming and argon milling,' but the experimental procedure only Ar+ mills an air-exposed film; no oxygen-plasma descumming step is performed, and no un-milled control sample is measured. In addition, no elemental analysis (e.g., XPS or EDS) is provided to show that the defects contain oxygen. The attribution to oxygen impurities is therefore a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result. The authors' own acknowledgment that atomic-resolution mapping is unattainable on these granular films is reasonable, but it does not replace the need for elemental or chemical characterization, or at least an explicit reframing of the oxygen mechanism as speculative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text vs. Supplemental Figure S1] The critical fields are reported inconsistently: the main text gives B_sample,c = 103.1 mT and B_tip,c = 1.59 T, while the supplement gives 101.7 mT and 1.51 T for the same quantities; these should be reconciled.
  2. [Figure 2 caption and text] The suppression field for the single-pair state is given as 17 mT in the text and in Figure 2e, while the double-pair state is said to be suppressed at 'approximately 18 mT'; the values should be made consistent or the difference should be explained.
  3. [Figure 2c caption and text] The spectrum in Figure 2c is labeled the 'pristine superconducting gap,' but it was acquired after Ar milling on a region without YSR features; the wording should be clarified to avoid implying a measurement on an unmilled surface.
  4. [Binding-energy precision] Binding energies such as 597.5 ueV and 598.4 ueV are quoted to 0.1 ueV precision, which is much finer than the lock-in modulation of 20 uV; please provide the fitting procedure or round the values to a precision consistent with the energy resolution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports direct STM spectroscopy and applies standard YSR theory from the external literature; no predicted quantity reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental STM study, not a derivation from a model. The main claims, that Ar+ milling creates oxygen-related defects and that in-gap peaks appear near the coherence peaks, are direct spectroscopic observations. The YSR interpretation invokes the standard Shiba/Yu/Rusinov expression and the Balatsky review (Refs. 14-16, 19), which are external to this work. The self-authored references (Ref. 11 on oxygen-induced localized states in superconductors and Ref. 22 on superconducting tip preparation) provide context and method support, but the conclusion does not rest on them alone; the text also cites independent references 9, 10, 12, 13, and 29-31 for oxygen-vacancy magnetism. The 17-18 mT suppression of the near-gap states is explained qualitatively by gap-edge smearing, and for the outer pair at 597.5-598.4 micro-eV the measured Ginzburg-Landau gap reduction at 17 mT (down to roughly 584 micro-eV) is numerically consistent with the state leaving the gap. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity. The possible lack of energy resolution at Vmod = 20 micro-V and the absence of direct elemental identification of oxygen are experimental and correctness concerns, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities; it interprets observed spectral features using established YSR theory and prior results on oxygen-vacancy magnetism. The main unverified assumptions are the magnetic character and oxygen origin of the states, and the specific suppression mechanism.

free parameters (3)
  • Zero-field superconducting gaps (Δsample,0, Δtip,0) = 600.3 µeV and 208.1 µeV
    Extracted by fitting Dynes function to measured dI/dV spectra, then fitted with Ginzburg-Landau model. These values are used to place the YSR peaks relative to the gap edges.
  • Critical fields (Bsample,c, Btip,c) = 103.1 mT and 1.59 T (main text); 101.7 mT and 1.51 T (supplement)
    Fitted parameters of the Ginzburg-Landau model used to interpret the field-dependent suppression of the YSR states.
  • Surface/bulk gap ratio comment = Δsurface=600.3 µeV, Δbulk≈720 µeV
    The surface gap is smaller than the bulk value, attributed without quantitative modeling to grain size and surface disorder. This difference is used to contextualize the weak coupling of the YSR states.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The observed in-gap peaks are YSR states described by the standard Shiba relation ε=±Δ(1-α^2)/(1+α^2) with α=JS_imp πρ_n.
    This identifies the spectral features. It is a textbook result and the authors cite the standard references.
  • domain assumption Oxygen-related defects in the Ta suboxide layer carry local magnetic moments (exchange coupling J to the superconductor).
    The magnetism is inferred from prior literature on oxygen vacancies at superconducting interfaces, not measured directly (no spin-polarized STM, no elemental analysis).
  • domain assumption A modest out-of-plane magnetic field (~17-18 mT) blurs the superconducting gap edge enough to drive near-gap YSR states into the continuum.
    This is a qualitative mechanism invoked to explain the observed suppression. It is plausible but not quantitatively modeled in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic bound states embedded in tantalum superconducting thin films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H4ID43VE

@misc{pith2026241215903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic bound states embedded in tantalum superconducting thin films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H4ID43VE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15903}
}
read the original abstract

In the fabrication of superconducting devices, both in situ and ex situ processes are utilized, making the removal of unwanted oxide layers and impurities under vacuum conditions crucial. Oxygen descumming and argon milling are standard in situ cleaning methods employed for device preparation. We investigated the impact of these techniques on tantalum superconducting thin films using scanning tunneling microscopy at millikelvin temperatures. We demonstrate that these cleaning methods inadvertently introduce magnetic bound states within the superconducting gap of tantalum, likely by oxygen impurities. These bound states can be detrimental to superconducting qubit devices, as they add to dephasing and energy relaxation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic overview of the main steps in tantalum qubit met [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. XRD and STM characterization of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetic field dependence of an effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  5. [5]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  6. [6]

    Blais , author A

    author author A. Blais , author A. L. \ Grimsmo , author S. M. \ Girvin , \ and\ author A. Wallraff ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025005 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 93 ,\ pages 025005 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.025005 2021

  7. [7]

    Siddiqi ,\ 10.1038/s41578-021-00370-4 journal journal Nature Reviews Materials \ volume 6 ,\ pages 875 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    author author I. Siddiqi ,\ 10.1038/s41578-021-00370-4 journal journal Nature Reviews Materials \ volume 6 ,\ pages 875 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/s41578-021-00370-4 2021

  8. [8]

    author author N. P. \ de Leon , author K. M. \ Itoh , author D. Kim , author K. K. \ Mehta , author T. E. \ Northup , author H. Paik , author B. S. \ Palmer , author N. Samarth , author S. Sangtawesin , \ and\ author D. W. \ Steuerman ,\ 10.1126/science.abb2823 journal journal Science \ volume 372 ,\ pages eabb2823 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1126/science.abb2823

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Liu \ and\ author M

    author author X. Liu \ and\ author M. C. \ Hersam ,\ 10.1038/s41578-019-0136-x journal journal Nature Reviews Materials \ volume 4 ,\ pages 669 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    author author A. P. M. \ Place , author L. V. H. \ Rodgers , author P. Mundada , author B. M. \ Smitham , author M. Fitzpatrick , author Z. Leng , author A. Premkumar , author J. Bryon , author A. Vrajitoarea , author S. Sussman , author G. Cheng , author T. Madhavan , author ...

    doi

  3. [11]

    author author R. A. \ McLellan , author A. Dutta , author C. Zhou , author Y. Jia , author C. Weiland , author X. Gui , author A. P. M. \ Place , author K. D. \ Crowley , author X. H. \ Le , author T. Madhavan , author Y. Gang , author L. Baker , author A. R. \ Head , author I...

  4. [12]

    author author R. A. B. \ Devine , author L. Vallier , author J. L. \ Autran , author P. Paillet , \ and\ author J. L. \ Leray ,\ 10.1063/1.116663 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 68 ,\ pages 1775 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    Chaneliere , author J

    author author C. Chaneliere , author J. Autran , author R. Devine , \ and\ author B. Balland ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-796X(97)00023-5 journal journal Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports \ volume 22 ,\ pages 269 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    doi

  6. [14]

    author author M. V. \ Ivanov , author T. V. \ Perevalov , author V. S. \ Aliev , author V. A. \ Gritsenko , \ and\ author V. V. \ Kaichev ,\ 10.1063/1.3606416 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 110 ,\ pages 024115 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    doi

  7. [15]

    Shu , author Y

    author author T. Shu , author Y. Cui , author C. Tao , author D. Feng , author Y. Zhao , \ and\ author J. Shao ,\ 10.1364/OME.470871 journal journal Opt. Mater. Express \ volume 12 ,\ pages 4547 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Yang , author T

    author author F. Yang , author T. Gozlinski , author T. Storbeck , author L. Gr\"unhaupt , author I. M. \ Pop , \ and\ author W. Wulfhekel ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.102.104502 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 102 ,\ pages 104502 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi

  9. [17]

    Ramprasad ,\ 10.1063/1.1615700 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 94 ,\ pages 5609 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    author author R. Ramprasad ,\ 10.1063/1.1615700 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 94 ,\ pages 5609 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    Perez , author V

    author author I. Perez , author V. Sosa , author F. G. \ Perera , author J. T. \ Elizalde Galindo , author J. L. \ Enríquez-Carrejo , \ and\ author P. G. \ Mani González ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2019.04.037 journal journal Vacuum \ volume 165 ,\ pages 274 ( year 201...

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Yu ,\ 10.7498/aps.21.75 journal journal Acta Physica Sinica \ volume 21 ,\ pages 75 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    author author L. Yu ,\ 10.7498/aps.21.75 journal journal Acta Physica Sinica \ volume 21 ,\ pages 75 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965 doi

  12. [20]

    Shiba ,\ 10.1143/PTP.40.435 journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 40 ,\ pages 435 ( year 1968 ) NoStop

    author author H. Shiba ,\ 10.1143/PTP.40.435 journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 40 ,\ pages 435 ( year 1968 ) NoStop

    1968 doi

  13. [21]

    author author A. I. \ Rusinov ,\ @noop journal journal JETP Lett. (USSR) \ volume 9 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969

  14. [22]

    author author M. E. \ Flatt\'e \ and\ author J. M. \ Byers ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.3761 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 78 ,\ pages 3761 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997 doi

  15. [23]

    Farinacci , author G

    author author L. Farinacci , author G. Ahmadi , author G. Reecht , author M. Ruby , author N. Bogdanoff , author O. Peters , author B. W. \ Heinrich , author F. von Oppen , \ and\ author K. J. \ Franke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.196803 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume...

    doi

  16. [24]

    author author A. V. \ Balatsky , author I. Vekhter , \ and\ author J.-X. \ Zhu ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.373 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 78 ,\ pages 373 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Ruby , author F

    author author M. Ruby , author F. Pientka , author Y. Peng , author F. von Oppen , author B. W. \ Heinrich , \ and\ author K. J. \ Franke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.087001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 115 ,\ pages 087001 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    doi

  18. [26]

    z Z itko , author O

    author author R. z Z itko , author O. Bodensiek , \ and\ author T. Pruschke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.054512 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 83 ,\ pages 054512 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    Balashov , author M

    author author T. Balashov , author M. Meyer , \ and\ author W. Wulfhekel ,\ 10.1063/1.5043636 journal journal Rev. Sci. Instrum. \ volume 89 ,\ pages 113707 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    author author J. J. \ Hauser \ and\ author H. C. \ Theuerer ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.36.80 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 36 ,\ pages 80 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964 doi

  21. [29]

    author author K. D. \ Crowley , author R. A. \ McLellan , author A. Dutta , author N. Shumiya , author A. P. M. \ Place , author X. H. \ Le , author Y. Gang , author T. Madhavan , author M. P. \ Bland , author R. Chang , author N. Khedkar , author Y. C. \ Feng , author E. A. \...

    doi

  22. [30]

    author author T. A. \ van Schijndel , author A. P. \ McFadden , author A. N. \ Engel , author J. T. \ Dong , author W. J. \ Y \'a nez-Parre \ n o , author M. Parthasarathy , author R. W. \ Simmonds , \ and\ author C. J. \ Palmstr m ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2405.12417 \ (...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    \ Ji , author T

    author author S.-H. \ Ji , author T. Zhang , author Y.-S. \ Fu , author X. Chen , author X.-C. \ Ma , author J. Li , author W.-H. \ Duan , author J.-F. \ Jia , \ and\ author Q.-K. \ Xue ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.226801 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 100 ,\ pages 22...

    doi

  24. [32]

    \ Wang , author X.-Q

    author author S.-Z. \ Wang , author X.-Q. \ Yu , author L.-X. \ Wei , author L. Wang , author Q.-J. \ Cheng , author K. Peng , author F.-J. \ Cheng , author Y. Liu , author F.-S. \ Li , author X.-C. \ Ma , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Science Bulletin \ volume 69 ,\ pages 1...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Machida , author Y

    author author T. Machida , author Y. Nagai , \ and\ author T. Hanaguri ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033182 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 4 ,\ pages 033182 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    \ Yeh , author T.-K

    author author S.-S. \ Yeh , author T.-K. \ Su , author A.-S. \ Lien , author F. Zamani , author J. Kroha , author C.-C. \ Liao , author S. Kirchner , \ and\ author J.-J. \ Lin ,\ @noop journal journal Nature communications \ volume 11 ,\ pages 4749 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  27. [35]

    Tamir , author M

    author author I. Tamir , author M. Trahms , author F. Gorniaczyk , author F. von Oppen , author D. Shahar , \ and\ author K. J. \ Franke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L140505 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 105 ,\ pages L140505 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi

  28. [36]

    author author P. G. \ Pritchard \ and\ author J. M. \ Rondinelli ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2410.13160 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    author author R. D. \ Chang , author N. Shumiya , author R. A. \ McLellan , author Y. Zhang , author M. P. \ Bland , author F. Bahrami , author J. Mun , author C. Zhou , author K. Kisslinger , author G. Cheng , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2408.13051 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    author author R. C. \ Dynes , author V. Narayanamurti , \ and\ author J. P. \ Garno ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.1509 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 41 ,\ pages 1509 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978 doi

  31. [39]

    author author R. C. \ Casella \ and\ author P. B. \ Miller ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.136.A928 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 136 ,\ pages A928 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964 doi

  32. [40]

    Meservey \ and\ author D

    author author R. Meservey \ and\ author D. H. \ Douglass ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.135.A24 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 135 ,\ pages A24 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.