Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Intrinsic Quasiparticle Lifetime in a Superconducting Aluminum

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Direct time-resolved measurements show that quasiparticles in superconducting aluminum nanowires relax about an order of magnitude faster than BCS electron-phonon theory predicts below 0.7 K, while matching it above that temperature.

desk verdict New data extend QP lifetime measurements in Al up to 1.2 K, but the low-T discrepancy rests on a theory baseline that is not independently verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16614 v1 pith:IDRQ5IFY submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Konrad Norowski , Marek Foltyn , Alexander Savin , Maciej Zgirski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quasiparticlelifetimesuperconductingaluminumelectron-phononrelaxationswitchingthermometryDayemnanobridgenanowirenonequilibriumquasiparticlesthermal
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 reports direct time-resolved measurements of the quasiparticle lifetime in superconducting aluminum nanowires from 0.3 K to 1.2 K. The central finding is that above about 0.7 K the measured lifetimes agree quantitatively with electron-phonon cooling theory, while below 0.7 K the quasiparticles decay significantly faster than that theory predicts. The authors suggest the discrepancy is a real physical effect, possibly a stronger low-temperature electron-phonon coupling or a smaller electronic heat capacity than assumed, not merely a thermometer artifact. They also show that the quasiparticle system keeps a well-defined temperature during the decay, so quasiparticle-quasiparticle scattering must be much faster than electron-phonon scattering. The result matters because quasiparticle lifetimes control error and reset behavior in superconducting qubits, resonators, and detectors.

What carries the argument

The central tool is time-resolved switching thermometry: a Dayem nanobridge, a short narrow superconducting weak link, sits in the middle of the nanowire and registers the temperature-dependent switching probability of its supercurrent. A heating current pulse drives the wire normal, and a delayed testing pulse reads the switching probability, giving the cooling curve. The analysis uses the one-dimensional heat equation (Eq. 1) with electron-phonon coupling and quasiparticle diffusion, while the linearized model $\tau_{ep} = C_e/G_{ep}$ (Eq. 2), with $C_e$ the electronic heat capacity and $G_{ep}$ the electron-phonon conductance, provides the theoretical upper bound for the relaxation time. The comparison of static and dynamic switching curves is what establishes internal equilibrium of the quasiparticle system.

What would settle it

Directly measure the electronic heat capacity of the same 30 nm aluminum films, or change the phonon-escape conditions (substrate, film thickness, interface) while keeping the geometry fixed: if the lifetime then matches $\tau_{ep} = C_e/G_{ep}$ below 0.7 K, the deficit was an artifact of the assumed parameters rather than a new relaxation channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in 30 nm polycrystalline aluminum wires the quasiparticle relaxation time follows the electron-phonon reference $\tau_{ep} = C_e/G_{ep}$ at bath temperatures above 0.7 K but falls below it at lower temperatures. At 0.3 K the measured lifetimes are roughly 0.4–4 µs depending on wire length, about an order of magnitude shorter than the pure electron-phonon cooling model would give, and the length dependence is weaker than the diffusion model predicts. The authors show that increasing the electron-phonon power by a factor of 8 and reducing the electron thermal conductivity by a factor of 4 reproduces the data, but only in a narrow temperature window, and they note that a smaller electronic heat capacity is an alternative explanation. A second claim is that the electron system stays in internal equilibrium during the transients, so the electron temperature is well defined and quasiparticle-quasiparticle scattering must be much faster than electron-phonon scattering.

Load-bearing premise

The whole discrepancy is measured against a theoretical relaxation time built from literature values for the electronic heat capacity and from a standard theoretical electron-phonon coupling; if those assumed material values are not right for these 30 nm wires, the reported low-temperature deficit could shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below about 0.7 K, the standard electron-phonon cooling model overestimates quasiparticle lifetimes in thin aluminum wires, so thermal relaxation in such devices is faster than BCS-based estimates suggest.
  • Above 0.7 K, the measured lifetimes match $\tau_{ep} = C_e/G_{ep}$, confirming the electron-phonon cooling channel in this regime.
  • Because the quasiparticle distribution remains internally thermal during relaxation, thermodynamic two-temperature models are legitimate for these transients.
  • The weak length dependence at low temperature implies that quasiparticle diffusion alone does not explain the decay; the data point to lower electron thermal conductivity, stronger electron-phonon coupling, or a smaller heat capacity than the model assumes.
  • A faster-than-expected decay below 0.7 K would drain excess quasiparticles more quickly in aluminum qubits and detectors operating at sub-kelvin temperatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two parameter changes that reproduce the data—eight times stronger electron-phonon power and four times weaker thermal conductivity—are not independently determined by the relaxation curves, so a direct measurement of the heat capacity on identical films would separate those explanations.
  • Because the adjusted model fits only a narrow temperature window, the low-temperature deficit may reflect a mechanism beyond simple renormalized constants, such as phonon trapping, disorder-enhanced coupling, or boundary effects.
  • The same switching-thermometry protocol could test other superconducting thin films to see whether the sub-kelvin lifetime deficit is unique to aluminum or shared by disordered superconductors generally.
  • If the faster decay is confirmed, it would shorten the effective quasiparticle reset time in aluminum qubits and detectors, a practical consequence worth quantifying in device-oriented follow-ups.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-resolved switching thermometry measurements on 30-nm-thick polycrystalline aluminum nanowires of lengths 37–800 μm over bath temperatures from 0.3 K to 1.2 K. The quasiparticle relaxation time τ_qp is extracted from the exponential tails of thermal transients and compared with a 1-D heat-diffusion model [Eq. (1)], with the simplified electron-phonon relaxation time τ_ep = C_e/G_ep [Eq. (2)], with the Kaplan et al. formula [Eq. (3)], and with published low-temperature data. The principal experimental finding is that for T > 0.7 K the measured lifetimes agree well with the electron-phonon prediction, whereas below about 0.7 K the measured τ_qp is significantly shorter than that prediction, with a weaker wire-length dependence than the diffusion model gives. The authors also report a match between static and dynamic switching curves (Fig. 3), which they interpret as evidence that the quasiparticle system maintains internal quasi-equilibrium during the transient. Their central conclusion is that the standard theoretical model underrates phonon emission at low temperatures, or that some additional energy relaxation channel is present.

Significance. If the low-temperature discrepancy is real, the result is important for superconducting qubits and detectors: it would imply that the standard Kaplan/BCS electron-phonon framework overestimates quasiparticle lifetimes in thin aluminum films below roughly 0.7 K, with a faster relaxation channel than usually assumed. The experiment is valuable because it provides direct time-domain data over a broad temperature range and across several wire lengths, and the comparison is not circular: τ_qp is extracted from decay curves rather than derived from the model. The high-temperature agreement with Eq. (2) serves as a useful consistency check of the measurement chain. The authors are also transparent about the main limitation, explicitly stating that a smaller heat capacity than assumed could explain the data. However, the central claim currently rests on material parameters that are not independently measured on the same films, especially the exponentially temperature-sensitive heat capacity, so the evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2 and the paragraph following it] The central low-temperature claim is quantified against τ_ep = C_e/G_ep in Eq. (2), where C_e is taken from the literature [35] and is not measured on the 30-nm wires used here. Because the superconducting heat capacity is exponentially activated, C_e ∝ exp(−Δ/k_B T_0), even a few-percent shift in the effective gap or in T_c changes the baseline by a large factor near 0.3 K while leaving the T > 0.7 K agreement essentially unchanged. The authors themselves write that 'our measurement may mean that heat capacity is smaller than the value assumed in the modeling.' As it stands, the data do not uniquely establish that phonon emission is underrated at low temperature; the observed order-of-magnitude deficit is also compatible with a misestimated C_e. Please provide an independent heat-capacity determination for these films, or a quantitative sensitivity analysis over the plausible range of Δ, T_c, and other film parameters, before drawing the conclusion that the electron-phonon interaction is stronger than predicted.
  2. [Modeling in Fig. 2(b) and the 'factor of 8' paragraph] The reproduction of the data by increasing P_ep by a factor of 8 and reducing κ by a factor of 4 is a two-parameter fit applied over a narrow temperature range, not an independent prediction. The text itself notes that such matching can be obtained only for a narrow range of bath temperatures. This degeneracy means that the individual magnitudes of the proposed modifications are not constrained, and other parameter combinations—including a smaller C_e—can fit the same data. Please provide a full error budget with parameter uncertainties and state which specific observable would break the degeneracy between C_e, P_ep, and κ.
  3. [Fig. 3 and the section on internal equilibrium] The claim that quasiparticle-quasiparticle relaxation is much faster than electron-phonon relaxation in the superconducting state is inferred from the coincidence of static and dynamic S curves at a single bath temperature, T_0 = 400 mK, and for delays following a pulse that first heats the structure above T_c. This is suggestive but does not by itself establish quasi-equilibrium over the full 0.3–1.2 K range. Since the lifetime extraction and the heat-flow modeling assume that T_e is well defined throughout the transient, please clarify how sensitively the extracted τ_qp values depend on this assumption, and whether deviations from internal equilibrium at the lowest temperatures would alter the reported lifetimes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Text after Fig. 2] In the sentence 'τ_ep(T) still runs significantly below the pure electron-phonon prediction', the symbol τ_ep should presumably be τ_qp, since the measured long-wire relaxation time is being compared with the electron-phonon prediction.
  2. [Fig. 2(b) caption and legend] The legend entry 'fit from Ref. [24] to Eq. 3' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the dashed-dotted line is a fit of τ_0 to literature data or the Kaplan prediction with fixed parameters. Please state explicitly which quantity is fitted and report the resulting parameter values.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The values of τ_0 and Δ/T_c used to draw the dashed-dotted curve in Fig. 2(b) are not given in the main text; please provide them for reproducibility and to allow comparison with the values used in previous studies.
  4. [Fig. 2(a)] The vertical line marking the 'sensitivity onset' is important for judging the reliability of the lowest-temperature points (T_0 ≈ 0.3 K), which are close to the stated 280 mK operational limit. A sentence in the main text describing this boundary and its possible effect on the extracted lifetimes would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured quasiparticle lifetimes are compared against an independent BCS/electron-phonon benchmark, and the paper's ad hoc rescaling is explicitly labeled as a fit, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between experimentally measured relaxation times, extracted from exponential tails of time-resolved switching-thermometry decays, and a theoretical benchmark τ_ep = C_e/G_ep obtained from Eq. (2) with literature heat capacity and BCS-based electron-phonon conductance. The measurement itself does not use the model to define τ_qp, so the low-temperature discrepancy is not forced by construction. The numerical model of Eq. (1) adds diffusion, and the authors clearly label the factor-8 enhancement of P_ep and factor-4 reduction of κ as a demonstration of quantitative agreement over a narrow temperature range, not as a prediction; they also mention the alternative that the heat capacity could be smaller than assumed, which is an acknowledged parameter degeneracy rather than a circular step. Self-citations appear only for the switching-thermometry method and for the supplemental numerical computations, not as load-bearing uniqueness or existence claims. The theoretical prediction is an external benchmark (Kaplan et al. and standard BCS parameters), so the paper is self-contained against an independent reference and no identified step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on a standard BCS-based cooling model and the assumption that the thermometer's S-curve maps to electron temperature. No new entities are introduced. Two ad hoc scaling parameters are used to explain the low-T discrepancy.

free parameters (2)
  • P_ep enhancement factor = 8
    In the numerical model, the electron-phonon power is multiplied by 8 to obtain quantitative agreement with measured QP lifetimes at low T; this is an ad hoc fit to the data.
  • κ suppression factor = 1/4 (κ reduced by factor of 4)
    The electron thermal conductivity is reduced by a factor of 4 in the same fit to match the weaker length dependence observed experimentally.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption BCS theory for electron-phonon power P_ep and thermal conductivity κ
    Used in Eq. (1) and to compute Gep in Eq. (2); if the films are not BCS-like, the theoretical baseline changes.
  • domain assumption Phonon bath stays at T0 (Tph=T0)
    P_ep is computed with Tph=T0; trapped phonons are invoked only for high heating powers. The authors assume efficient phonon escape for their thin films.
  • domain assumption Electron temperature Te is well-defined during transients (Fermi-Dirac distribution)
    The S-curve comparison in Fig. 3 supports this at T0=400 mK, but it is assumed to hold throughout the cooling process.
  • domain assumption Switching probability S curve uniquely fingerprints quasiparticle occupation
    Used to convert measured switching probability/current to electron temperature; this is the basis of the thermometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic Quasiparticle Lifetime in a Superconducting Aluminum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDRQ5IFY

@misc{pith2026241116614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic Quasiparticle Lifetime in a Superconducting Aluminum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDRQ5IFY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16614}
}
abstract

We use time-resolved thermometry to monitor the decay of nonequilibrium quasiparticles in superconducting Al in the temperature range from $0.3\,$K to $1.2\,$K. The quasiparticle lifetime at higher temperatures ($T>0.7\,$K) agrees well with the calculated energy flow from electrons to phonons, but at lower temperatures it is significantly shorter than the theory predicts. We show well-defined internal equilibrium of quasiparticle system in the studied thermal transients, which implicates that quasiparticle-quasiparticle relaxation is much faster than electron-phonon interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16614 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Thermal relaxation of the aluminum nanowire. (a) Relaxations in the linear regime obtained from monitoring the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quasiparticle relaxation time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The comparison of the switching probability depen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    See Supplemental Material at ... for information regard- ing switching thermometry, requirements for a fast and sensitive thermometer, the saturation of the relaxation time due to low sensitivity of the thermometer, the ther- mal properties of a superconducting aluminum, numeri- cal studies of the interplay of electron-phonon coupling and electron thermal...

    work page

  2. [1]

    Photon-mediated thermal relaxation of electrons in nanostructures,

    D. R. Schmidt, R. J. Schoelkopf, and A. N. Cle- land, “Photon-mediated thermal relaxation of electrons in nanostructures,” Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 045901 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Electronic re- frigeration at the quantum limit,

    Andrey V. Timofeev, Meri Helle, Matthias Meschke, Mikko Möttönen, and Jukka P. Pekola, “Electronic re- frigeration at the quantum limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 200801 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

    Out-of- equilibrium phonons in gated superconducting switches,

    M. F. Ritter, N. Crescini, D. Z. Haxell, M. Hinderling, H. Riel, C. Bruder, A. Fuhrer, and F. Nichele, “Out-of- equilibrium phonons in gated superconducting switches,” Nature Electronics 5, 71–77 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Dynamics of gate-controlled superconducting Dayem bridges,

    François Joint, Kazi Rafsanjani Amin, Ivo P. C. Cools, and Simone Gasparinetti, “Dynamics of gate-controlled superconducting Dayem bridges,” Applied Physics Let- ters 125, 092602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Heat hunting in a freezer: Direct mea- surement of quasiparticle diffusion in superconducting nanowire,

    M. Zgirski, M. Foltyn, A. Savin, A. Naumov, and K. Norowski, “Heat hunting in a freezer: Direct mea- surement of quasiparticle diffusion in superconducting nanowire,” Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 044024 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Magnetic field dependence of quasiparticle losses in a supercon- ductor,

    J. N. Ullom, P. A. Fisher, and M. Nahum, “Magnetic field dependence of quasiparticle losses in a supercon- ductor,” Applied Physics Letters73, 2494–2496 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [7]

    Direct measurement of the electron energy relaxation dynamics in metallic wires,

    Edouard Pinsolle, Alexandre Rousseau, Christian Lupien, and Bertrand Reulet, “Direct measurement of the electron energy relaxation dynamics in metallic wires,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 236601 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Steady-state heat transport and work with a single artificial atom coupled to a waveguide: Emission without external driving,

    YongLu, NeillLambert, AntonFriskKockum, KenFuno, Andreas Bengtsson, Simone Gasparinetti, Franco Nori, and Per Delsing, “Steady-state heat transport and work with a single artificial atom coupled to a waveguide: Emission without external driving,” PRX Quantum 3, 020305 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Quantum thermodynamics with a single superconduct- ing vortex,

    M. Foltyn, K. Norowski, A. Savin, and M. Zgirski, “Quantum thermodynamics with a single superconduct- ing vortex,” Science Advances10, eado4032 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    Joule heating induced by vortex motion in a type-II su- perconductor,

    Z. L. Xiao, E. Y. Andrei, P. Shuk, and M. Greenblatt, “Joule heating induced by vortex motion in a type-II su- perconductor,” Phys. Rev. B64, 094511 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    Calorimetry of a phase slip in a Josephson junction,

    E.Gümüş, D.Majidi, D.Nikolić, P.Raif, B.Karimi, J.T. Peltonen, E. Scheer, J. P. Pekola, H. Courtois, W. Belzig, and C. B. Winkelmann, “Calorimetry of a phase slip in a Josephson junction,” Nature Physics19, 196–200 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence,

    Antti P. Vepsäläinen, Amir H. Karamlou, John L. Orrell, Akshunna S. Dogra, Ben Loer, Francisca Vasconcelos, David K. Kim, Alexander J. Melville, Bethany M. Niedzielski, Jonilyn L. Yoder, Simon Gus- tavsson, Joseph A. Formaggio, Brent A. VanDevender, and William D. Oliver, “Imp...

    2020

  6. [13]

    Decoherence of superconducting qubits caused by quasiparticle tunneling,

    G. Catelani, S. E. Nigg, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. I. Glazman, “Decoherence of superconducting qubits caused by quasiparticle tunneling,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 184514 (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Evidence of a nonequilibrium distribution of quasiparticles in the microwave response of a superconducting aluminum res- onator,

    P. J. de Visser, D. J. Goldie, P. Diener, S. Withing- ton, J. J. A. Baselmans, and T. M. Klapwijk, “Evidence of a nonequilibrium distribution of quasiparticles in the microwave response of a superconducting aluminum res- onator,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 047004 (2014)

    2014

  8. [15]

    Prob- ing quasiparticle excitations in a hybrid single electron transistor,

    H. S. Knowles, V. F. Maisi, and J. P. Pekola, “Prob- ing quasiparticle excitations in a hybrid single electron transistor,” Applied Physics Letters100, 262601 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Quasiparticle-diffusion-based heating in super- conductor tunneling microcoolers,

    Sukumar Rajauria, Hervé Courtois, and Bernard Pan- netier, “Quasiparticle-diffusion-based heating in super- conductor tunneling microcoolers,” Phys. Rev. B 80, 214521 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    Superconduct- ing nanowire single-photon detectors: A perspective on evolution, state-of-the-art, future developments, and ap- plications,

    Iman Esmaeil Zadeh, J. Chang, Johannes W. N. Los, Samuel Gyger, Ali W. Elshaari, Stephan Steinhauer, Sander N. Dorenbos, and Val Zwiller, “Superconduct- ing nanowire single-photon detectors: A perspective on evolution, state-of-the-art, future developments, and ap- plications,...

    2021

  11. [18]

    Identifi- cation and elimination of anomalous thermal decay in gamma-ray microcalorimeters,

    Robert D. Horansky, Douglas A. Bennett, Daniel R. Schmidt, Barry L. Zink, and Joel N. Ullom, “Identifi- cation and elimination of anomalous thermal decay in gamma-ray microcalorimeters,” Applied Physics Letters 103, 212602 (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    Metallic supercur- rent field-effect transistor,

    Giorgio De Simoni, Federico Paolucci, Paolo Solinas, Elia Strambini, and Francesco Giazotto, “Metallic supercur- rent field-effect transistor,” Nature Nanotechnology 13, 802–805 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    On the origin of the controversial elec- trostatic field effect in superconductors,

    I. Golokolenov, A. Guthrie, S. Kafanov, Yu. A. Pashkin, and V. Tsepelin, “On the origin of the controversial elec- trostatic field effect in superconductors,” Nature Com- munications 12, 2747 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Ther- malization and dynamics of high-energy quasiparticles in a superconducting nanowire,

    T. Jalabert, E. F. C. Driessen, F. Gustavo, J. L. Thomassin, F. Levy-Bertrand, and C. Chapelier, “Ther- malization and dynamics of high-energy quasiparticles in a superconducting nanowire,” Nature Physics 19, 956– 960 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Frequency pulling and mixing of relaxation oscillations in superconducting nanowires,

    Emily Toomey, Qing-Yuan Zhao, Adam N. McCaughan, and Karl K. Berggren, “Frequency pulling and mixing of relaxation oscillations in superconducting nanowires,” Phys. Rev. Appl.9, 064021 (2018). 6

    2018

  16. [23]

    Low-frequency phase locking in high- inductance superconducting nanowires,

    R. H. Hadfield, A. J. Miller, S. W. Nam, R. L. Kautz, and R. E. Schwall, “Low-frequency phase locking in high- inductance superconducting nanowires,” Applied Physics Letters 87, 203505 (2005)

    2005

  17. [24]

    Time- resolved measurements of thermodynamic fluctuations of the particle number in a nondegenerate Fermi gas,

    C. M. Wilson, L. Frunzio, and D. E. Prober, “Time- resolved measurements of thermodynamic fluctuations of the particle number in a nondegenerate Fermi gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 067004 (2001)

    2001

  18. [25]

    Quasiparti- cle relaxation in optically excited high-q superconducting resonators,

    R. Barends, J. J. A. Baselmans, S. J. C. Yates, J. R. Gao, J. N. Hovenier, and T. M. Klapwijk, “Quasiparti- cle relaxation in optically excited high-q superconducting resonators,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 257002 (2008)

    2008

  19. [26]

    Number fluctua- tions of sparse quasiparticles in a superconductor,

    P. J. de Visser, J. J. A. Baselmans, P. Diener, S. J. C. Yates, A. Endo, and T. M. Klapwijk, “Number fluctua- tions of sparse quasiparticles in a superconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 167004 (2011)

    2011

  20. [27]

    Strong reduction of quasiparticle fluctuations in a super- conductor due to decoupling of the quasiparticle number and lifetime,

    Steven A. H. de Rooij, Jochem J. A. Baselmans, Vignesh Murugesan, David J. Thoen, and Pieter J. de Visser, “Strong reduction of quasiparticle fluctuations in a super- conductor due to decoupling of the quasiparticle number and lifetime,” Phys. Rev. B104, L180506 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Enhancement of quasiparticle recombination in Ta and Al supercon- ductors by implantation of magnetic and nonmagnetic atoms,

    R. Barends, S. van Vliet, J. J. A. Baselmans, S. J. C. Yates, J. R. Gao, and T. M. Klapwijk, “Enhancement of quasiparticle recombination in Ta and Al supercon- ductors by implantation of magnetic and nonmagnetic atoms,” Phys. Rev. B79, 020509 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    Nanosecond thermometry with Josephson junctions,

    M. Zgirski, M. Foltyn, A. Savin, K. Norowski, M. Meschke, and J. Pekola, “Nanosecond thermometry with Josephson junctions,” Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 044068 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Observation of hot-electron shot noise in a metallic resistor,

    Andrew H. Steinbach, John M. Martinis, and Michel H. Devoret, “Observation of hot-electron shot noise in a metallic resistor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3806–3809 (1996)

    1996

  24. [31]

    Frequency dependence of shot noise in a diffusive mesoscopic conductor,

    R. J. Schoelkopf, P. J. Burke, A. A. Kozhevnikov, D. E. Prober, and M. J. Rooks, “Frequency dependence of shot noise in a diffusive mesoscopic conductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3370–3373 (1997)

    1997

  25. [32]

    Effects of electron-electron collisions with small energy transfers on quantum localisation,

    B L Altshuler, A G Aronov, and D E Khmelnitsky, “Effects of electron-electron collisions with small energy transfers on quantum localisation,” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics15, 7367 (1982)

    1982

  26. [33]

    Energydistributionfunctionofquasipar- ticles in mesoscopic wires,

    H. Pothier, S. Guéron, Norman O. Birge, D. Esteve, and M.H.Devoret,“Energydistributionfunctionofquasipar- ticles in mesoscopic wires,” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3490– 3493 (1997)

    1997

  27. [34]

    Magnetic-field-dependent quasiparticle energy relax- ation in mesoscopic wires,

    A. Anthore, F. Pierre, H. Pothier, and D. Esteve, “Magnetic-field-dependent quasiparticle energy relax- ation in mesoscopic wires,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 076806 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    Quasiparticle and phonon lifetimes in superconductors,

    S. B. Kaplan, C. C. Chi, D. N. Langenberg, J. J. Chang, S. Jafarey, and D. J. Scalapino, “Quasiparticle and phonon lifetimes in superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B14, 4854–4873 (1976)

    1976

  29. [37]

    Measurement of re- combination lifetimes in superconductors,

    Allen Rothwarf and B. N. Taylor, “Measurement of re- combination lifetimes in superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 27–30 (1967)

    1967

  30. [38]

    Thermal budget of superconducting digital circuits at subkelvin temperatures,

    A. M. Savin, J. P. Pekola, D. V. Averin, and V. K. Semenov, “Thermal budget of superconducting digital circuits at subkelvin temperatures,” Journal of Applied Physics 99, 084501 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Thermal relaxation in titanium nanowires: Signatures of inelastic electron-boundary scattering in heat trans- fer,

    Teemu Elo, Pasi Lähteenmäki, Dmitri Golubev, Alexan- der Savin, Konstantin Arutyunov, and Pertti Hakonen, “Thermal relaxation in titanium nanowires: Signatures of inelastic electron-boundary scattering in heat trans- fer,” Journal of Low Temperature Physics189, 204–216 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Recombination-limited energy relaxation in a Bardeen- Cooper-Schrieffersuperconductor,

    A. V. Timofeev, C. Pascual García, N. B. Kopnin, A. M. Savin, M. Meschke, F. Giazotto, and J. P. Pekola, “Recombination-limited energy relaxation in a Bardeen- Cooper-Schrieffersuperconductor,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 102, 017003 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Tunable quasiparticle trap- ping in meissner and vortex states of mesoscopic super- conductors,

    M. Taupin, I. M. Khaymovich, M. Meschke, A. S. Mel’nikov, and J. P. Pekola, “Tunable quasiparticle trap- ping in meissner and vortex states of mesoscopic super- conductors,” Nature Communications7, 10977 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Hot- electron effects in metals,

    F. C. Wellstood, C. Urbina, and John Clarke, “Hot- electron effects in metals,” Phys. Rev. B49, 5942–5955 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

    Tempo- ral measurement of hot-electron relaxation in a phonon- cooled metal island,

    D. R. Schmidt, C. S. Yung, and A. N. Cleland, “Tempo- ral measurement of hot-electron relaxation in a phonon- cooled metal island,” Phys. Rev. B69, 140301 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Trapping a single vortex and reducing quasiparticles in a superconducting resonator,

    I. Nsanzineza and B. L. T. Plourde, “Trapping a single vortex and reducing quasiparticles in a superconducting resonator,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 117002 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

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